The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the retirement date on which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) constitutes workers against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) constitutes the average wage of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) constitutes the retirement date on June 30, 2014.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of employee gender and retirement allowances, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court determined that the instant agreement was invalid in violation of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the nature of settlement amount and Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and thereby adversely

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.